[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 48 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1981-S1984]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF DAVID NUFFER TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF UTAH
______
NOMINATION OF RONNIE ABRAMS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______
NOMINATION OF RUDOLPH CONTRERAS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read the nominations of David Nuffer, of Utah, to be
United States District Judge for the District of Utah; Ronnie Abrams,
of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern
District of New York; and Rudolph Contreras, of Virginia, to be United
States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate is about to vote on the
nomination of David Nuffer to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the
Federal trial court for Utah. This is not a nomination that should have
been filibustered or required the filing of a cloture motion in order
to be scheduled for consideration by the Senate. This is a nomination,
reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 5 months ago, that
we should have voted on and confirmed last year.
Today's consideration was facilitated when the majority leader and
the republican leader came to an understanding last week. With a
judicial vacancies crisis that has lasted years, and nearly one in 10
judgeships across the Nation vacant, the Senate needs to work to reduce
judicial vacancies significantly before the end of the year.
Unlike the nearly 60 district court nominees of President Bush who
were confirmed within a week of being reported by the Judiciary
Committee during President Bush's first term, qualified, consensus
nominees to fill vacancies on our Federal courts have been needlessly
stalled during President Obama's first term. The five-month delay in
the consideration of Judge Nuffer is another example of the needless
delays that were occasioned by Republicans' unwillingness to agree to
schedule the nomination for a vote. The application of the ``new
standard'' the junior Senator from Utah conceded Republicans are
applying to President Obama's nominees continues to hurt the America
people all over the country who are being forced to wait for judges to
fill these important Federal trial court vacancies and hear their
cases. Justice is being delayed for millions of Americans.
This nomination is one of the 20 circuit and district court
nominations ready for Senate consideration and a final confirmation
vote. They were all reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee after
thorough review. All but a handful are by any measure consensus
nominations, as is Judge Nuffer. There was never any good reason for
the Senate not to proceed to votes on these nominations. It should not
have taken cloture motions to get agreement to schedule votes on these
qualified, consensus judicial nominations.
Judge Nuffer has been serving over the last 17 years as a magistrate
judge for the very court to which he was nominated by the President. By
any sensible standard he should be confirmed. No ``new standard''
should be used to oppose his confirmation. Like Judge Nuffer, the other
nominees awaiting votes by the Senate are qualified judicial nominees.
They are nominees whose judicial philosophy is well within the
mainstream. These are all nominees supported by their home State
Senators, both Republican and Democratic. The consequence of these
months of delays is borne by the millions of Americans who live in
districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled as soon as
Senate Republicans allow votes on the judicial nominations currently
before the Senate awaiting their final consideration.
We must continue with the pattern set by last week's agreement. The
Senate needs to make progress beyond the 14 nominations in that
agreement and beyond the 20 nominations currently on the calendar.
There are another eight judicial nominees who have had hearings and are
working their way through the committee process. There was another
needless delay when Republicans boycotted the Judiciary Committee
meeting last week and prevented a quorum while insisting on a meeting
to hold over nominees. We will overcome that and have those nominations
before the Senate this spring.
I hope the committee will hold hearings on another 11 nominations in
the next few weeks. One of those nominees, Robert Shelby, is to fill
the other vacancy on the United States District Court for the District
of Utah. Whether he is included depends in large measure on the
Senators from Utah.
I have assiduously protected the rights of the minority in this
process. I have only proceeded with judicial nominations supported by
both home State Senators. That has meant that we are not able to
proceed on current nominees from Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Florida,
Oklahoma and Utah. I even stopped proceedings on a circuit court
nominee from Kansas when the Kansas Senators reversed themselves and
withdrew their support for the nominee.
I have been discussing with the junior Senator from Utah whether he
will
[[Page S1982]]
support the nomination of Robert Shelby. I have yet to receive
assurance that he will. His vote today on the Nuffer nomination may
provide a clue.
When the Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of David
Nuffer, both Republican home State Senators, Senator Hatch and Senator
Lee, strongly supported the President's nomination. This is another
nomination on which President Obama reached out and consulted with
Republican home State Senators. The Senators from Utah supported this
nomination when the President made it last year and when after hearing
and study it was voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee. They both
serve on the Committee. Had either of them opposed this nomination, I
would not have proceeded with it. They supported it. I hope this will
not be another occasion on which either switches his vote from yes to
no. That is another new practice and new standard that Senate
Republicans have seemed to adopt.
By working steadily and by proceeding with the regular consideration
of judicial nominations, I hope the Senate ensures that the Federal
courts have the judges they need to provide justice for all Americans
without needless delay. In the two most recent presidential election
years, 2004 and 2008, we worked together to reduce judicial vacancies
to the lowest levels in decades. In 1992, with a Republican President
and a Democratic Senate majority, we confirmed 66 judicial nominees.
Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are
to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their
day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to
their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured
plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses,
that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the
case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they
should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.
I went back and checked my recollection of how we considered
consensus Federal trial court nominees in President Bush's first term.
Nearly 60 were confirmed within a week of being voted on by the Senate
Judiciary Committee. By contrast there have only been two judicial
nominees voted on so promptly since President Obama took office. I said
at the time we were able to vote on the Alabama nominee supported by
Senator Sessions, who was at that time the Committee's Ranking
Republican member, and on Judge Reiss of Vermont, that I hoped they
would become the model for regular order. Instead, they stand out as
isolated exceptions to the months of delay Senate Republicans have
insisted on before considering consensus Federal trial court nominees
of this President. Today, the Senate will vote on the nominations of
Ronnie Abrams and Rudolph Contreras to fill judicial vacancies in the
U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the
District of Columbia. These are both nominations that were reported
unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 4 months ago. They are
among the many nominations that could and should have been voted on and
confirmed last year.
Today's votes are pursuant to the agreement reached by the majority
leader and the Republican leader last week. Although I commend the step
forward, the Senate must continue to vote on judicial nominations
reported by the Judiciary Committee beyond the dozen encompassed by
that agreement, if we are to make significant progress in reducing the
vacancies across the Nation that number nearly one in 10.
Just yesterday, I read an article about the crushing caseload that
the Federal courts in Arizona currently face. I will ask unanimous
consent to include a copy of the article, entitled ``Federal courts in
Arizona face crushing caseload,'' in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks. In the article, the chief judge of Arizona's Federal trial
court noted that they are in ``dire circumstances'' and that they are
``under water'' from all the cases on their docket. The report notes
that the Federal court not having its full complement of judges
``lessens the quality of justice for all parties involved.'' They are
relying on visiting judges from other courts around the country to
assist with their court proceedings. In too many places around the
country, our Federal courts have to rely on senior judges. Their
dedication is commendable but they should not be carrying such heavy
workloads.
The needless 4-month delays in the consideration of Ronnie Abrams and
Rudolph Contreras are just more examples of the delays that have been
occasioned by Republicans' unwillingness to agree to schedule the
nominations for a vote. The Senate must return to the practice of
moving forward on consensus nominees and of ``build[ing] bridges
instead of burn[ing] them,'' as Senator Coburn urged.
The nominations today are two of the 20 circuit and district court
nominations ready for Senate consideration and a final confirmation
vote. They were all reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee after
thorough review. All but a handful are by any measure consensus
nominations, as are Ms. Abrams and Mr. Contreras. There was never any
good reason for the Senate not to proceed to votes on these
nominations. It should not have taken cloture petitions to secure
agreement to schedule votes on these qualified, consensus judicial
nominations.
Ronnie Abrams is nominated to serve as a Federal trial judge on the
Southern District of New York. She is an experienced attorney who spent
10 years as a Federal prosecutor in the district to which she has been
nominated. She served as Chief of the General Crimes Unit and Deputy
Chief of the Criminal Division. Since 2008, Ms. Abrams has worked as
Special Counsel for Pro Bono at the New York law firm Davis Polk &
Wardwell, where she began her legal career after clerking for Chief
Judge Thomas Griesa in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
Rudolph Contreras is nominated to serve as a Federal trial judge in
the District of Columbia. Born to Cuban immigrants, Mr. Contreras has
devoted his career to public service for the last 17 years. He worked
as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia and in
Delaware. He has risen to be the chief of the Civil Division of the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, where he currently
serves. The delay in considering his nomination recalls the 4-month
filibuster against the nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida.
On that nomination, Senate Republicans delayed the vote for another 2
days after cloture was invoked and the filibuster brought to an end.
Judge Jordan was then finally confirmed as the first Cuban-American to
serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The consequences of these months of delays are borne by the nearly
160 million Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies
that could be filled as soon as Senate Republicans agree to up or down
votes on the 20 judicial nominations currently before the Senate
awaiting a confirmation vote.
The Senate must continue the actions allowed by last week's
agreement. The Senate needs to make progress beyond the nominations
included in that agreement, and beyond the 20 nominations currently on
the calendar. There are another eight judicial nominees who have had
hearings and are working their way through the Committee process.
Several of those were needlessly delayed last week when Republicans
boycotted the Judiciary Committee meeting and prevented a quorum after
insisting on a meeting only to hold over nominees. There are another 11
nominations on which the Committee should be holding additional
hearings during the next several weeks. By working steadily and by
continuing the regular consideration of judicial nominations
represented by last week's understanding between the leaders, the
Senate can do its part to ensure that the Federal courts have the
judges they need to provide justice for all Americans without needless
delay.
Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are
to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their
day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to
their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured
plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses,
that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge
[[Page S1983]]
hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a
contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve
their dispute.
Today's votes are steps in the right direction.
I ask unanimous consent that the article I referenced be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From YumaSun.com, Mar. 17, 2012]
Federal Courts in Arizona Face Crushing Caseload
(By Victoria Pelham)
Federal courts in Arizona are still in ``dire
circumstances'' as an emergency declaration that was supposed
to help judges keep pace with a crushing caseload is set to
expire.
The judicial emergency declared last year in the wake of
the shooting death of Chief Judge John Roll runs out Monday,
but officials say the U.S. District Court for the state still
faces many of the same challenges.
``The reason that existed last year still prevails this
year,'' Chief Judge Roslyn Silver said recently. ``We are
still in dire circumstances. We are under water.''
The judicial emergency more than doubled the time allowed
for the government to bring a case to trial, giving the court
some relief from a rising caseload and judicial vacancies in
the district.
Through ``lots of hard work'' and the help of visiting
judges, the district court has managed to stay within the
original 70-day time frame for cases to come to trial under
the Speedy Trial Act and has not had to invoke the 180-day
limit allowed under the emergency.
But that balancing act could be thrown off, Silver said,
without the extra help the court has been receiving.
``If we don't have that, which is the fail-safe, then we're
in big trouble, because there's just no way we could handle
this caseload,'' Silver said.
Arizona had the highest number of per-judge felony filings
in the nation in fiscal 2011, at 554 criminal felony filings
for each district court judge, according to the U.S. District
Court Judicial Caseload Profile for Arizona. That load was
fueled in part by the large number of immigration cases
handled in the court, experts said.
The court also saw the total number of cases per judge grow
by 22 percent in the fiscal year, from 793 to 969, the
fourth-highest judicial caseload in the country, the report
said.
It came as three of the 13 district judgeships allotted to
the state were vacant. Two were empty last January when Roll
was killed in the shooting spree at a Tucson supermarket that
killed five others and wounded 13, including former Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords.
The judicial emergency was declared by Silver after Roll's
death. It was extended last February to this March by the
Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, in an effort to buy
the district some breathing room.
President Barack Obama nominated two candidates in June to
fill the vacancies, but only one, Judge Jennifer Guerin
Zipps, has been appointed. The other nominee, attorney
Rosemary Marquez, has been stalled in the Senate.
Brian Karth, the clerk for the district, said filling those
vacancies is the minimum needed. He claimed that, according
to judicial standards, the district's caseload is high enough
to warrant 10 additional judgeships.
In the meantime, the district has had to rely on visiting
judges from other districts across the country, Karth said.
One to two judges come each week to assist with court
proceedings.
``We continue to struggle to keep within standards, and
everybody's basically forced to work harder and try to be
resourceful in pulling together resources, sometimes from
outside our district, to perform well,'' Karth said.
``There's certainly a wear and tear on anybody who has to
sustain that sort of a pace for lengthy periods,'' he said.
Walter Nash, a trial lawyer and partner with Nash &
Kirchner in Tucson, said the ``crushing'' caseload in the
district is having a serious impact on trials.
``It lessens the quality of justice for all parties
involved,'' Nash said.
Prosecutors have less time to prepare arguments, while
victims' cases aren't resolved ``as fast as they should be.''
And judges could be rushed into a decision, meaning some
guilty defendants may be acquitted, he said.
The need for new judges will be even greater when Speedy
Trial Act provisions are reinstated next week after the
emergency expires, Nash said.
``You get the best result . . . if everyone has time to
handle a case properly,'' Nash said.
Silver agreed that slow trials affect all sectors of the
public and courts have an ``obligation to ensure justice for
all.'' But with limited resources, space problems in
courtrooms, large numbers of criminal cases and other
concerns, trials could suffer, with civil trials in
particular lagging behind or not getting the attention they
deserve.
``So far we're OK, but it will present a problem at some
time,'' Silver said. ``We are required to act fairly in every
criminal case, but there's only so much we can do.''
The emergency cannot be renewed for six months after it
expires. Silver said that if things don't improve, officials
will have to consider the possibility of renewing.
``There was a reason for it last year, and I expect
there'll be a reason for it this year,'' she said.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, again, we are moving forward under the
regular order and procedures of the Senate. This year, we have been in
session for about 32 days, including today. During that time we will
have confirmed 12 judges. That is an average of better than 1
confirmation for every 3 days. With the confirmations today, the Senate
will have confirmed nearly 74 percent of President Obama's Article III
judicial nominations.
Today, we turn to three more judicial nominations. Ronnie Abrams is
nominated to be United States District Judge for the Southern District
of New York. She graduated with a B.A. from Cornell University in 1990.
She received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1993. Upon law school
graduation, she clerked for Honorable Thomas P. Griesa of the United
State District Court for the Southern District of New York. From 1994
to 1998 she worked as an associate on civil matters at David Polk and
Wardwell. In 1998, Ms. Abrams joined the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York as an Assistant United
States Attorney in the Criminal Division. She handled a variety of
criminal cases, inducing ones involving the sexual exploitation of
children, bank robbery, immigration, identity theft and money
laundering. She also served in the Narcotics, Violent Crime and Public
Corruption Units. From 2004 to 2008, Ms. Abrams served in a supervisory
role at the United States Attorney's Office, as either Deputy Chief or
Chief of the Criminal Division. In 2008, Ms. Abrams returned to David
Polk and Wardwell as Special Counsel for Pro Bono and represents those
without means to represent themselves.
Rudolph Contreras is nominated to be United States District Judge for
the District of Columbia. He is a 1984 graduate from Florida State
University and received his J.D. in 1991 from the University of
Pennsylvania Law School. After graduating from law school, Mr.
Contreras joined the litigation department of the law firm Jones Day.
In 1994, he became an Assistant United States Attorney in the District
of Delaware and the District of Columbia. In that capacity, he has
represented the United States and its departments at both the trial
level and appellate levels in civil actions. In 2003, Mr. Contreras
became Chief of the Civil Division in the District of Delaware. There,
he supervises 40 Assistant United States Attorneys, 6 Special Assistant
United States Attorneys, and 31 support staffers.
David Nuffer is nominated to be United States District Judge for the
District of Utah. He received his B.S. in 1975 and his J.D. in 1978
from Brigham Young University. He began his legal career as an
associate at Allen Thompson & Hughes. From 1982 to 1992, Judge Nuffer
practiced both criminal prosecution and criminal defense. From 1995 to
2002, he represented municipalities, individuals and businesses in
civil litigation. He also served as a part-time United States
Magistrate Judge during this time. In 2003, he was appointed to serve
as a full-time magistrate judge. In 2009, he became Chief Magistrate
Judge. He has presided over 30 cases that have gone to verdict or
judgment. While some may complain about the time it has taken to
confirm Judge Nuffer, I would note that the President took over a year
and a half--576 days--to submit this nomination, once the vacancy
occurred.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate today will
confirm U.S. Magistrate Judge David Nuffer to the U.S. District Court
in Utah. Two of the five judicial positions on that busy court have
been vacant for some time, and Judge Nuffer will be a welcome addition.
Judge Nuffer has been involved in virtually all aspects of the legal
community in Utah. He was in private practice for more than 20 years
and has been an adjunct professor at Brigham Young University's J.
Reuben Clark Law School since 2001. He has chaired the Utah Judicial
Conduct Commission and served on advisory and study committees, task
forces, and councils appointed by the Utah Supreme Court. This
diversity of experience and commitment to both the bar and the bench
[[Page S1984]]
make him well qualified to join the U.S. District Court.
Judge Nuffer has also worked to promote the rule of law
internationally, as a consultant and lecturer with the Ukraine Rule of
Law Project. I was pleased last year to meet with a group of judges
from Ukraine who were in the United States, both Washington and in
Utah, as part of this educational program. Our independent judicial
system and commitment to the rule of law is unparalleled anywhere in
the world.
I also want to note Judge Nuffer's efforts to promote access to the
courts through technology. He has definitely been ahead of the curve on
this issue. Back in the 1990s, Judge Nuffer directed the Utah
Electronic Law Project and served on the Utah Supreme Court's Ad Hoc
Committee on Access to Electronic Court Records. As Chairman of the
Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, I appreciate how such cutting
edge efforts can benefit all Americans at low cost.
As I travel throughout Utah talking to lawyers and judges, the
unanimous opinion is that Judge Nuffer has the experience, temperament,
and integrity to be a great Federal judge. It was no surprise when the
American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating. I
thank my colleagues for their support of this fine nominee.
Mr. LEAHY. I would note, on this side, at least--I know we have to
have a rollcall on this first nominee. I will have no objection if
there are voice votes on the next two. That would be up to others. But
on the first one I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
All time is yielded back.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of David Nuffer, of Utah, to be United States District Judge for the
District of Utah.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 57 Ex.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--2
DeMint
Lee
NOT VOTING--2
Heller
Kirk
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be now be
2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the
Abrams nomination.
Who yields time?
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we expect this to be the last vote. I am
told that we have worked something out so the next judge we can do by
voice. This will be the last vote of the week.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I am honored to offer my strong
support for the nomination of Ronnie Abrams to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. I also want to
thank President Obama for acting on my recommendation and nominating
another superbly qualified woman jurist to the Federal bench.
I have had the privilege of knowing Ms. Abrams for many years. I know
her as a fairminded woman of great integrity. Throughout her
distinguished legal career, she has proven herself as an exceptional
attorney. As Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the United
States Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York, she
supervised hundreds of prosecutions, including violent crime, organized
crime, white-collar crime, public corruption, drug trafficking, and
crimes against children.
Her record shows her commitment to justice. I can tell you she has a
deep and sincere commitment to public service. There is no question
that Ms. Abrams is extremely well qualified and well suited to be a
Federal judge.
I strongly believe our Nation needs more women such as her serving on
the Federal judiciary, an institution that I believe needs more
exceptional women. I believe it is incredibly important that we do
reach the point of balance in the judiciary. I recommend her most
highly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Ronnie Abrams, of New York, to be United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 58 Ex.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--2
DeMint
Lee
NOT VOTING--2
Heller
Kirk
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the nomination
of Rudolph Contreras, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge
for the District of Columbia.
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________